Support NeoGAF

[mrmustard]

Is the empathy emoji the new triggered emoji here? Go back and show empathy to evert post I have please.

You seem so upset, i just wanted to tell you: I feel for you!

 

[Dick Jones]

You seem so upset, i just wanted to tell you: I feel you!

I'm not upset. I'm just wondering what you were trying to achieve? If it was for me to pity you, it worked.

 

[mansoor1980]

phil looking happy ,

or is it that mask he wears

 

[mansoor1980]

ps5 being dragged into court for the hearing

PLYSTATION the most controversial console brand of all times

 

[mrmustard]

I'm not upset. I'm just wondering what you were trying to achieve? If it was for me to pity you, it worked.

I just wanted to comfort you, because you seemed to be super close to a meltdown thread, but nothing is so hard as man's ingratitude.

 

[Infamy v1]

Hot damn, Sony fanboys seem to be absolutely fuming and seething today. I wonder why?

 

[Ronin_7]

Hot damn, Sony fanboys seem to be absolutely fuming and seething today. I wonder why?

People need to stop taking stuff like this emotionally honestly.

Just let it play out.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Is the empathy emoji the new triggered emoji here? Go back and show empathy to every post I have please.

Empathy emoji means: "Oh you poor little thing!" or something in those lines.
It sometimes is used as empathy, depends on context.

 

[Dick Jones]

I just wanted to comfort you, because you seemed to be super close to a meltdown thread, but nothing is so hard as man's ingratitude.

I'm fine. So are you one of those wankers on Reddit who sends a Reddit cares? Knock yourself out with the emoji, I just didn't know what your embarrassing tactic was. It's actually more sad than I expected.

 

[Elysium44]

That’s confirmation bias. I also don’t want the deal to go through but the FTC hasn’t made or shown anything that even I, who am against the deal, would says “there is your evidence”, so why would the judge.

That's how I feel too. Seems to me the judge will side with Microsoft, all the signs are there that the judge isn't impressed. The onus is on the FTC and they are falling short.

I've been following this thread and others online and this seems to be the only place which thinks the FTC is doing well in court. Their arguments might have won us over personally but it isn't us that they have to convince, it's the judge.

 

[Banjo64]

That's how I feel too. Seems to me the judge will side with Microsoft, all the signs are there that the judge isn't impressed. The onus is on the FTC and they are falling short.

I've been following this thread and others online and this seems to be the only place which thinks the FTC is doing well in court. Their arguments might have won us over personally but it isn't us that they have to convince, it's the judge.

I think a few other people have said this but I don’t think anyone expects the FTC to win here because the deck is stacked in Microsoft’s favour in terms of the US system, however it is enjoyable to have dirty laundry aired when it goes against the public message they’ve been peddling.

 

[Bernoulli]

ps5 being dragged into court for the hearing

PLYSTATION the most controversial console brand of all times

why they do that

 

[mansoor1980]

why they do that

something to do with COD

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That will have more to do with the Microsoft recently employing the judge's son than the arguments being presented by both sides.

Unfortunately, I think this is the case too. The FTC and MS are just speaking meaningless words at each other, the decision was already made before this show trial started.

FTC are complete buffoons but they did keep one card in their vest. By not objecting to the judge's son being an MS employee, they can appeal later on and claim conflict of interest and most likely get a second hearing on appeal because it's so blatant here. So in a sense this is a write-off, which would explain why FTC's performance has been so embarrassing so far, even more than usual for them.

 

[Dick Jones]

That will have more to do with the Microsoft recently employing the judge's son than the arguments being presented by both sides.

Is this the same judge of the stupid gamer lawsuit? Was it disclosed then?

 

[Heisenberg007]

I think a few other people have said this but I don’t think anyone expects the FTC to win here because the deck is stacked in Microsoft’s favour in terms of the US system, however it is enjoyable to have dirty laundry aired when it goes against the public message they’ve been peddling.

Yeah, this is where I'm at too. Very few people expect the FTC to win this case, but the dirty laundry is equally as fun.

According to the theory I had, this injunction, at this time, was likely to disturb Microsoft's renegotiations with ABK's shareholders. If Microsoft fails to renegotiate, the deal will be blocked permanently on July 18 anyway. Then Microsoft can't invest in ABK for at least 10 years.

As a result, the FTC gets what it wants, i.e., this acquisition to fail.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Is this the same judge of the stupid gamer lawsuit? Was it disclosed then?

I think so, but I'm not sure if it's the same judge. At least I didn't see this information brought to public until this hearing started earlier this week.

 

[Rykan]

why they do that

Bribery.

 

[Astray]

The judge's son thing is a nothing burger.

Even if she rules against MS and they fire him it will be the easiest lawsuit ever to get his dues.

 

[Warablo]

Kramer Write GIF - Kramer Write It - Discover & Share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

but they're the ones who's writing it off.

 

[VinnyG]

Unfortunately, I think this is the case too. The FTC and MS are just speaking meaningless words at each other, the decision was already made before this show trial started.

FTC are complete buffoons but they did keep one card in their vest. By not objecting to the judge's son being an MS employee, they can appeal later on and claim conflict of interest and most likely get a second hearing on appeal because it's so blatant here. So in a sense this is a write-off, which would explain why FTC's performance has been so embarrassing so far, even more than usual for them.

The judge declares his son's position to both parties before starting the trial giving them the option to appeal and make a request to change judge if they felt there might be a conflict of interest. I think that ship has sailed already

 

[In Cold Blood]

I mean, you can think that if you want, but the quality of the Microsoft lawyers is seriously lacking, and it shows.

It's not the FTC that is one trial, it's MS. It's the FTC that is one the attack, not MS.
All MS has to do is answer the questions the right way when they are asked, and the lawyers job is just to cross examine MS to clarify things that the FTC wouldn't let them answer with.

The problem for the FTC is that they don't understand the gaming buisness, and they are too dumb to see the hypocrisy in the questions they are asking and how they can back fire.
FTC - "Are you intending to make Indiana Jones an exclusive?"
MS - "Sony has many exclusives like Spiderman that they keep off xbox, so we need to be able to match that with a game like Indiana Jones".

What's the saying, "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to"

 

[VinnyG]

I think so, but I'm not sure if it's the same judge. At least I didn't see this information brought to public until this hearing started earlier this week.

Yes is the same judge. Was moved to this case by replacing another judge precisely because.. already knew the situation having previously worked on the gamers lawsuits

 

[Three]

The judge declares his son's position to both parties before starting the trial giving them the option to appeal and make a request to change judge if they felt there might be a conflict of interest. I think that ship has sailed already

They should have requested it. This only proves to the idiots though that the FTC isn't trying to stall and were reasonable about it.

 

[Sony]

Not necessarily

As long as Phil Spencer is in charge, it will (under oath). Doesn’t mean his successor is bound to the same oath

MS is unwilling to sign a perpetual contract. Says it all really. “10 years is plenty”

No evidence to suggest they won’t foreclose eventually with CoD, every single one of their other acquisitions has been

Perpetual contracts are dumb as they can never account for unforeseeable circumstances. You can't contractually promise something forever.

Regarding foreclosure, there also isn't any evidence that they will. The contrary really. Microsoft bought Mojang for 2,5billion and to this day Minecraft is on Playstation. They even released a VR update for Playstation.

So, to put it other way around, other than single player experiences, what game or franchise with a large online MTX component has Microsoft blocked/removed from Playstation?

 

[PaintTinJr]

No surprise Phil didn't see the trap there, and Tom being no better at forming an argument thought it was a win situation for a tweet.

Phil is now on record that he understands the financial situation of how the merger works, and can no longer defer a question as beyond his knowledge, where the the FTC would get that transcript read back to him to discredit him completely.

Only a dumb person would fail to see a smart person intentionally playing dumb and then think they were smart by saying exactly what that person had wanted them to say.

 

[jm89]

FTC - "Are you intending to make Indiana Jones an exclusive?"
MS - "Sony has many exclusives like Spiderman that they keep off xbox, so we need to be able to match that with a game like Indiana Jones".

Lol didn't ms reject an offer for a Spiderman game? If anything ms kept it off xbox.

And microsofts response is terrible, Indiana Jones was set to come to playstation, and there is now proof they made it exclusive even though it was planned for playstation. Do we have that same proof for spiderman?

 

[Nothing1234]

Insomniac’s Spiderman was never contracted to be on Xbox.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Regarding foreclosure, there also isn't any evidence that they will. The contrary really. Microsoft bought Mojang for 2,5billion and to this day Minecraft is on Playstation.

Only because it was in the contract demanded by notch

 

[Sony]

Only because it was in the contract demanded by notch

Releasing Minecraft VR was in the contract? Or dungeons on PS+? Also, there is contract for CoD, so what's the concern?

 

[jm89]

- The judge made Spencer confirm under oath Cod will be coming to Playstation, throwing the console SLC out the window.

I stopped listening when this was going on, but didn't the judge or lawyer say his words weren't binding? I'm pretty sure a few people who where listening in mentioned this a few pages back.

 

[Facism]

Need to add "nothing burger" to the same list as yikes, oof, y'all etc

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Releasing Minecraft VR was in the contract? Or dungeons on PS+?

Yes, all versions of Minecraft ip

 

[PaintTinJr]

Way too subtle for Phil to understand that landmine for a $70b acquisition priced off a multiplier - more than half - for the current and future market value of CoD, Diablo, WoW, OverWatch and all the AAA gaming IPs, and he claims they are in it for the mobile market share.

This makes it impossible for Microsoft to argue that they couldn't have divested ABK when that was the CMA remedy. Looks like the FTC are laying the foundations to catch them in a multitude of lies in the CMA case, or both.

 

[DForce]

It's not the FTC that is one trial, it's MS. It's the FTC that is one the attack, not MS.
All MS has to do is answer the questions the right way when they are asked, and the lawyers job is just to cross examine MS to clarify things that the FTC wouldn't let them answer with.

The problem for the FTC is that they don't understand the gaming buisness, and they are too dumb to see the hypocrisy in the questions they are asking and how they can back fire.
FTC - "Are you intending to make Indiana Jones an exclusive?"
MS - "Sony has many exclusives like Spiderman that they keep off xbox, so we need to be able to match that with a game like Indiana Jones".

What's the saying, "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to"

I'm just shaking my head. lol

The FTC's strategy is to establish doubt when it comes to Call of Duty exclusive agreement.

Microsoft's strategy is to

1. Prove they will keep Call of Duty on PlayStation by using Minecraft as their example.
2. Show that regardless of Call of Duty's exclusivity, they'll still be in third place, which will not change Sony's dominant position in the console market.

The FTC knows what Phil is going to say about Indiana Jone's exclusivity. It was predictable. The same can be said about Redfall, Starfield, and Elder Scrolls.

So every time Microsoft brought up Minecraft multiplatform agreement, all the FTC has to say is.

- What about the email where you wanted to make Minecraft Dungeons Exclusive?
- What about making Starfield, Elder Scrolls, and Redfall exclusive post acquisition?
- What about the email that says you don't want to put games on PS now because it will help the competitor?
- What about these emails stating you want to beat Sony by acquiring studios?

If Phil's response is, "We making these games exclusive because we want to compete with [x] title" then what's stopping you from doing that to Activision titles?

The FTC probably made it clear that Microsoft's word is unreliable.

However, would that be enough?

Microsoft's strategy is also to show that Call of Duty is not significant and many people won't leave PlayStation for Xbox.

This is why they're trying to downplay Call of Duty's importance and that may be enough.

 

[harry mason 1989]

The winner of this sony vs ms fight will be declared on July 18

 

[Three]

Is there a transcript of the hearing anywhere? I joined the thread and streams late so it would be nice to catch up via some Saturday morning reading.

Also, where are feynoob and R reksveks ? You guys on holiday/doing OK?

 

[Ogbert]

I'm just shaking my head. lol

The FTC's strategy is to establish doubt when it comes to Call of Duty exclusive agreement.

Microsoft's strategy is to

1. Prove they will keep Call of Duty on PlayStation by using Minecraft as their example.
2. Show that regardless of Call of Duty's exclusivity, they'll still be in third place, which will not change Sony's dominant position in the console market.

The FTC knows what Phil is going to say about Indiana Jone's exclusivity. It was predictable. The same can be said about Redfall, Starfield, and Elder Scrolls.

So every time Microsoft brought up Minecraft multiplatform agreement, all the FTC has to say is.

- What about the email where you wanted to make Minecraft Dungeons Exclusive?
- What about making Starfield, Elder Scrolls, and Redfall exclusive post acquisition?
- What about the email that says you don't want to put games on PS now because it will help the competitor?
- What about these emails stating you want to beat Sony by acquiring studios?

If Phil's response is, "We making these games exclusive because we want to compete with [x] title" then what's stopping you from doing that to Activision titles?

The FTC probably made it clear that Microsoft's word is unreliable.

However, would that be enough?

Microsoft's strategy is also to show that Call of Duty is not significant and many people won't leave PlayStation for Xbox.

This is why they're trying to downplay Call of Duty's importance and that may be enough.

Unfortunately, the FTC has to meet a higher threshold.

Establishing that CoD will go exclusive is the first element. The second element, which hasn’t even been discussed, is that the exclusivity represents an unacceptable and anti-competitive move.

Company executives discussing how to beat competition is not a revelation. In fact, Spencer would be failing his fiduciary duty to the MS board if he wasn’t doing his best to try and beat Sony and Nintendo at each and every turn.

I also think the Minecraft reasoning is fundamentally unsound as, even if it did establish a desire to explore exclusivity, the game remains multiplat. I appreciate that there were contractual terms in place, but it underlines the point that MS (willingly or not) honoured those terms.

 

[jm89]

I also think the Minecraft reasoning is fundamentally unsound as, even if it did establish a desire to explore exclusivity, the game remains multiplat. I appreciate that there were contractual terms in place, but it underlines the point that MS (willingly or not) honoured those terms.

Minecraft contract terms for multiplat wasn't wholly dictated by MS though.

Cod contract will be in microsofts hands completley. They will control the length and whatever terms that is no doubt gonna be favourable to MS if there isn't a console SLC.

 

[fatmarco]

why they do that

 

[Sony]

Yes, all versions of Minecraft ip

That's patently false. There was no contractual obligation for Microsoft to release a VR update for the Playstation version of Minecraft.

 

[Methos#1975]

I like how MS keeps desperately trying to paint itself as the victim mere and at the mercy of Sony when it's their own incompetancy that put them in this position. I wish there were some actual knowledgeable gamers on the FTC side that hammered on them how they were during the XB360 era the dominant market leader for a hold portion of it till they just the hell up and ceded the market to Sony. If there were actual anyone at the FTC that understood this industry and the history of MS in it, MS would be beyond screwed here and all their whining called out.

 

[DForce]

Unfortunately, the FTC has to meet a higher threshold.

Establishing that CoD will go exclusive is the first element. The second element, which hasn’t even been discussed, is that the exclusivity represents an unacceptable and anti-competitive move.

Company executives discussing how to beat competition is not a revelation. In fact, Spencer would be failing his fiduciary duty to the MS board if he wasn’t doing his best to try and beat Sony and Nintendo at each and every turn.

I also think the Minecraft reasoning is fundamentally unsound as, even if it did establish a desire to explore exclusivity, the game remains multiplat. I appreciate that there were contractual terms in place, but it underlines the point that MS (willingly or not) honoured those terms.

There are many elements at play here.

We still don't know what was said during Jim Ryan's testimony.

Microsoft emails have shown their willingness to beat Sony by removing games from their platform to make Xbox stronger.

This is important because Jim Ryan said before that they rely on Call of Duty's revenue to make games. Sony is the market leader in the high-end console market by a large margin, but they don't have nearly as much cash as Microsoft.

Sure, they may have to reach a higher threshold, but no one here knows for sure what the judge is going to decide, so you go out there with their best effort.

 

[reksveks]

Is there a transcript of the hearing anywhere? I joined the thread and streams late so it would be nice to catch up via some Saturday morning reading.

Not that I know of, you may just have to go to https://twitter.com/MActon93?s=20 for the most even updates.

Also, where are feynoob and R reksveks ? You guys on holiday/doing OK?

Long days at work combined with the increased culture war crap (might just have hit a barrier) is suppressing my desire to post here. But ehh, not a biggie.

Re the actual case, no fucking clue which way it's going to go. Still think it's going to die via the CMA.

 

[Ogbert]

Minecraft contract terms for multiplat wasn't dictated by MS though.

Cod contract will be in microsofts hands completley. They will control the length and whatever terms that is no doubt gonna be favourable to MS if there isn't a console SLC.

Sure, of course. But, the Minecraft episode, regardless of discussions around exclusivity, concluded with MS honouring the terms of a contract.

My broader point was simply that establishing a reasonable expectation of exclusivity is only the first hurdle. The second one, and harder one, is demonstrating the anti competitive harm.

I expect the next two days of hearing might be a lot drier and more legal.

 

[mrmustard]

The winner of this sony vs ms fight will be declared on July 18

I don't think there will be many winners. MS + Sony already embarrassed themselves no matter the outcome and the fanboy maniacs spending 100 hours in this thread fighting over the smallest nonsense are no winners anyways.

 

[Sony]

I stopped listening when this was going on, but didn't the judge or lawyer say his words weren't binding? I'm pretty sure a few people who where listening in mentioned this a few pages back.

Nope. The FTC lawyer asked if he was answering on behalf of himself or on behalf of Microsoft. MS' lawyer objected to the question and the judge allowed the objection.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I don't think there will be many winners. MS + Sony already embarrassed themselves no matter the outcome and the fanboy maniacs spending 100 hours in this thread fighting over the smallest nonsense are no winners anyways.

In the end all that matters is if the deal goes through or not.

 

[Kenysu]

Avatar checks out.

 

[GHG]

Excuse me. I've NEVER had relations with a bovine.

Now...